On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:06:14 +0530
<[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Manish Honap <[email protected]>
> 
> The guest drives a single virtual decoder whose memory maps 1:1, so a
> device with more than one HDM decoder, or an interleaved one, cannot be
> represented. Turn that assumption into an explicit refusal at bind rather
> than a silent misprogramming later.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manish Honap <[email protected]>
> ---
>  drivers/vfio/pci/cxl/vfio_cxl_core.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/cxl/vfio_cxl_core.c 
> b/drivers/vfio/pci/cxl/vfio_cxl_core.c
> index 125e11354a46..7edc53b25576 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/cxl/vfio_cxl_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/cxl/vfio_cxl_core.c
> @@ -36,10 +36,30 @@ static int vfio_cxl_init_device(struct 
> vfio_pci_core_device *vdev)
>       if (!pdev->hdm)
>               return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>  
> +     /* The guest drives one virtual decoder; multiple are unsupported. */
> +     if (pdev->hdm->decoder_count != 1)
> +             return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
>       hdm_size = range_len(&pdev->hdm->settings[0].hpa_range);
>       if (!hdm_size)
>               return -ENXIO;
>  
> +     /* Interleaved decoders are unsupported. */
> +     if (pdev->hdm->settings[0].interleave_ways != 1)
> +             return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +     /*
> +      * The guest drives resets through the CXL Device DVSEC and polls the
> +      * shadow for completion. If the host cannot service a function-scoped
> +      * CXL reset (no reset DVSEC, a multifunction device, or no HDM reset
> +      * support), that guest request could never complete, so refuse the
> +      * device rather than advertise a reset the guest would poll on forever.
> +      */
> +     if (!cxl_reset_capable(pdev)) {
> +             pci_err(pdev, "vfio-cxl: Unsupported device: host cannot 
> service a CXL reset request\n");
> +             return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +     }

Why does this particular error deserve such a high priority log while
we silently fail the other two cases added here?

These don't seem particularly noteworthy to split into a separate patch
versus rolling them into the previous.  I'd probably also group the
easily testable EOPNOTSUPP errors before we actually start evaluating
things like the hdm_size.  Thanks,

Alex

> +
>       dvsec = pci_find_dvsec_capability(pdev, PCI_VENDOR_ID_CXL,
>                                         PCI_DVSEC_CXL_DEVICE);
>       serial = pci_get_dsn(pdev);


Reply via email to